Like her or not, that lady got some hard as steel balls. AOC for president woooo!
Hey, DNC, aren't you desperate to put a woman up for election? You've got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff. The conservatives haven't had time to run decades of smear tactics against her and she hasn't been threatening her husband's SA victims. I bet she already has a plan to deal with someone accusing her of being born in Mexico (I understand she's Puerto Rican, but that's not the bogeyman) and shut it down before years of idiocy bring it up again.
She's standing behind Biden this time around. I'm hoping for a run in 2028. It would be the first presidential candidate in a while that I didn't hold my nose to vote for.
She’s a firebrand—that’s not an insult. But it is a fact that if the DNC puts her to run, she will mobilize a lot of voters who may otherwise sit this one out. Hard to say definitively how many on either side; but I think she’s likely more hated by the rightwing base than she is loved by the left wing/centrist base.
I don’t think it would be a good strategic move in this cycle. Although I’d love to see her in the Oval Office and would vote that way should the chance arise.
Uh, late 40s here. I didn’t want to vote for Clinton (I did), but I’ll be first in line for AOC. She’s the right kind of direction to inspire us Genx who vote liberal. Time for Joe to step down.
Any good leftist candidate would mobilize opposition voters, that is unavoidable. It's no reason to not run a good candidate.
Agreed on this cycle. Agree or not we've got Biden. That's not changing and that's who I'll be behind. But damn, next cycle if she's in the primary I'm going to get even more involved than I already am.
You've got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff.
All evidence suggests that's the opposite of what the DNC wants
A moderate Crusty old white guy or bust! And then when he's too old say he shouldn't be running....
AOC suffers the same problem as Nancy Peloci: she's too demonized by the GOP. It's an odd problem to have but she would need to retire from the House for a few years and run later.
If you want AOC-like, Kathy Porter is actually a very viable candidate. The question is whether the DNC is willing to let her actually run or if they'll pull a "It's Hillary's turn" like they did to Bernie.
Who gives a shit what the GOP wants.
The GOP demonizing her is a good thing. It means they are scared of her.
Right? We get it, the GOP wants to watch the world burn.
Voters do after decades of shit tactics, but she hasn't been embroiled in anything and they haven't had time to really put it into people's subconscious.
Also, I agree with your sentiment. I can't give the slightest shit what a bunch of homophobic, regressive, hateful, Nazi cuntbags and their enablers think. If we work hard and get lucky we may be able to live in a world where what they think never matters again.
Democrats always want to please the GOP. Anytime they appoint someone (for example a special counsel) it always has to be a Republican to avoid the bad optics. Fuck that noise.
Meanwhile the GOP takes its gifted position and furthers it's goals.
she's too demonized by the GOP.
This will be true of any candidate another party runs. It is their primary MO, so ultimately, it needs to be factored out of discussions like these. If Joe Voter believes that shit anyway, it doesn't actually matter what candidate you run.
I think AOC has a lot of the same features that made Bernie so popular on 2016 with the added benefit of youth.
The GOP will try to demonize, but she will rise above the noise the same way Bernie did. Given that she is so young, she can stay relevant and pick and choose the exact moment she wants to run for president. Or even VEEP as the gateway to presidency.
Katie Porter
I was pretty bummed when she lost the Senate race
I would gladly vote for her. Hell I’d even volunteer for her campaign.
I'd vote for her, but I don't think she's ready. Better than Biden though.
Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He's not perfect, but there's not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.
I don't know if Jon or AOC would make a better president, but Jon would be better at campaigning against Trump.
But really just give us someone under 65. (Note: I'll still vote for the good person who's too old for the job if the alternative isn't better.)
I definitely get the love for Stewart. However, he holds no elected position and has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in running for president. So I'm not going to be the one to hold a gun to his head and force him to run.
AOC has the proper ambitions. If she's not ready then let her decide that because the only reason she wouldn't be is because a bunch of out of touch old dudes refuse to mentor her and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.
pls no more reality tv presidents.
There's a bit of a difference. Jon Stewart has made his reputation and career in political commentary. That's not exactly The Apprentice.
Yeah Jon is very intelligent, very quick witted, and a deep thinker. He reads a lot, listens, and learns from his mistakes. He knows to admit he doesn’t know something and listen to advice. And most importantly, he actually wants to do what’s right. I’m pretty sure he’d be a top 10 president.
To compare him to a reality tv personality like Trump is a little disingenuous.
ps no more actors or presidents that want to get into acting
That's not fair, you don't always get to choose what you'll be successful at. But we could use a doctor president...
I would literally pay hundreds of dollars to see Jon Stewart debate Trump, like pay per view. Jon would eviscerate Trump. He might frustrate him so much he’d have a heart attack right there on stage …. or better yet cause Trump to shit and completely overflow his diaper. Trump should probably wear his brown pants just in case.
Stewart would never run.
Bet you if AOC said to Jon stewart ill run for president if you are my running mate he would do it.
That would be the best campaign in history
I would love AOC and bernie sanders to be on the supreme court, however impossible that is
He might just jump on that grenade because the US would need it and I'd give him better than even odds he would self-sacrifice to counter evil winning.
I also think he would do an actual good job as vice president. Like break the mould type good
We could draft him
Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He’s not perfect, but there’s not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.
Stewart would be terrible for it.
Smart guy, great at calling BS, but he's continued to preach understanding and cooperation in the post Trump world in a way that, plainly, isn't possible when the American right operates in pure bad faith at basically every turn.
Take all the issues Obama had getting walked all over because he tried to work with the GOP and amplify it.
What's an SA victim ?
SA is sexual assault
Thanks.
Sexual assault victim. Bill Clinton is a rapist and general sex pest.
Thanks. I was seeing 'South American' and it just didn't work.
She would have a real chance at winning this cycle...thus there's no way they'd run her.
This will be the last cycle we have Democrats...a LOT of people are about to fall out of windows Russia style after Trump takes office.
The Supreme Court made him a king and people like AoC will be first on his hit list.
Problem: The Democratic Party would rather loose than get a left-winger elected.
First and foremost, she isnt eligible to be president until next year. She's only 34, and won't be 35 until after the inauguration.
Whoops, looks like I misread and was off by a year. I don't think it's going to matter this time around, but hopefully they keep her in mind for the future.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
AOC was born in New York City, NY, USA on 10/13/1989. On 10/13/2024, as in this October 13th, AOC will turn 35 years old. At that point she will be eligible to take the office of the presidency.
35 would be the youngest age of any president, though. The most recent younger presidents were Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at 47 and 46, respectively. The youngest ever president was Theodore Roosevelt at 42.
It would be a hard line to cross given that the majority of voters seem to be older, but it would be monumental in my nation's history.
If you read the second paragraph they are talking about 2028
And adding to that, she is eligible to be president this year, or rather 20th January 2025, because she's turning 35 in october...
she only turns 35 in october so she's got a long future ahead of her but she wouldn't be eligible until 2028.
She only needs to be 35 when taking office, from what I understand. So would be eligible now.
AOC for president woooo!
She's eligible right now because she'll be 35 by inauguration day.
OMFG Her vs trump debate. PLEASE!!
I don't want Trump to be around when she's running. 😇
I fully agree with this innocent nonthreatening comment.
Also agree.
I don't want Trump running around.
AOC can run any time.
On one hand, she has more efficacy in congress, on the other hand: fuck those fucking fucks AOC 24 let's fucking go!
Not really, the damage has been done.
She's the best, incredibly inspiring.
Pretty open and shut for the both of them, presiding over cases they have material interest in.
Kick their ass.
Which is why I'm honestly surprised reich-wingers haven't tried to murder her
Knocking on wood.
There was that creepy anime assassination video by fellow congressman gosar, AOC has mentioned receiving multiple death threats and one of the capital rioters said he'd bring guns next time to "assassinate AOC", so awful threats are happening.
Same guy that tweeted a selfie from inside the capital "just want to incriminate myself a little lol.”
AOC is very clear that she believes had they not escaped during the riot, assassinations would have occurred.
I'm happy that she is safe.
Knock on wood.
I have no doubt they'd have killed more then have people there if given the chance.
I just want you to know, I read this comment after a single toke and got concerned someone laced my weed with something.
Are you trying to say that you walked to school, or brought your lunch?
She hasn't done anything to directly go after Fuckface 45. Once she does that...
The rapist with 34 felonies. I won't give the honor of calling him 45.
I've been calling him that since he was in office and Colbert called him "Putin's cock holster".
They did, though, on January 6th! They were looking for her and others.
I’m sure they have tried, I’m also sure she’s probably pretty careful about her day to day life knowing the amount of potential enemies she has
Well.... they did just legalize gratuities for political favors.
Not quite as open and shut anymore.
Open and shut case… if the Dems controlled the house. But not enough democrats were voted into office, so these articles go to MAGA Mike Johnson, and unfortunately, his trash can.
But AOC knows this. Her goal is to keep this in the press so voters remember it in Nov. That’s the real play. No one is actually getting impeached this term. Mike Johnson is a Christian nationalist who loves what those activist judges are doing. No way he’s brining this to the floor. And if he did, AOC doesn’t have a simple majority.
Yea, open and shut objectively, not practically.
She'd get further just paying them enough to quit.
Don't down-talk John Oliver.
I thought his offer to pay the RV judge to quit was admirable. Was it a joke?
I laughed.
Just gotta add a few zeros to the offers. And likely have decent blackmail
Good on her for keeping this in the news for another cycle. This doesn’t go anywhere after she hands them the speaker of the republican controlled House. Johnson is basically going to throw them right in the bin.
But I imagine her goal is to get the media to cover the drama, and therefore keep this corruption story in the news.
She and others should just keep filing articles of impeachment every week until Nov. Keep this shit in the news.
Forcing them to put it in the trash is good though... Another thing to report on so perhaps it shifts house seats a bit.
It also tries to help Democratic congressional candidates in close races. Once these get thrown in the bin, they can remind voters that if they flip enough seats, they can have meaningful impeachment hearings in the next Congress.
Doesn't matter, the attempt had to be made for a firm historical objection.
People have no attention span these days. Our media has trained us to move on quickly to the next thing. They will probably only cover it if someone makes a spectacle of it like Trump does.
Godspeed.
I mean, it would literally only pass if the nominees for their replacements were some of Trump's spawn, but I guess it needs to be done anyways to establish just how corrupt Republicans are. You know.
Again.
Thank you AOC for standing up for the American people!
Her speech introducing the articles of impeachment is well worth watching: https://youtu.be/1H1R_qtPiVY
Thanks for posting this. I wouldn't have gone looking for it and it was definitely worth watching.
Time to write my representative in support, and have him laugh at me via bulk form letter!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, saying that their refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases "constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law."
In a statement, the New York congresswoman said that justices' refusal to step aside from cases "in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements" has created an "unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court."
The resolutions were co-sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rashida Talib, D-Mich., Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.
Both flags have each been carried in recent years by members of the "Stop the Steal" movement, whose supporters claim that President Joe Biden did not lawfully win the 2020 presidential election.
Extensive reporting last year by ProPublica showed that Thomas has accepted lavish gifts like vacations and flights without disclosing them in official ethics forms.
In the aftermath of the election, Ginni Thomas also sent messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand with Trump.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Can't they just make it a law they can't be impeached? Can't they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?
No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.
"We think the intent of this 'Impeach These Clowns Act' was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority."
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to.
The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court.
Aka the supreme Court has no army
at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court.
One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.
The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they're supposed to represent.
While technically accurate, you're making the mootest of points.
If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I'm replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.
I agree that Republicans likely wouldn't go along with this today in real life. One can dream
Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them
Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them
..for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don't see the flaw in that plan?
Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch.
Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc.
One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted.
But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn't assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.
They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can't be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.
So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can't they just dismiss the case with prejudice?
Impeachment isn't a criminal process, it's a political one, the same rules don't apply.
That's not necessary, as far as I understand there's a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That's not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can't succeed, but it's their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.
And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing
That's not how the three branches work, no.
The three branches are working?
The country's "check engine" light is on, and she's trying to fix it.
Country needs to get its front end/ alignment checked. Seems to only make right turns.
sounds like the steering linkage is disconnected
slaps hood of country this baby can fit so much corruption in it
Gawddayamn, can it ever.
Half the country is about to flood the engine bay with spray foam and put oil in the coolant reservoir.
Action denied is just more evidence of their complicitness rather than supposed. Also makes it very clear who does operate for their constitutes and only for their self interest.
Correct. This isn't an open debate anymore - the bribes were accepted. Every no vote is a vote saying it's ok to bribe the court.
The people who need to be convinced to care already don't care. The GOP isn't going to help remove their staunchest pawns on the court.
Especially not if in doing so Biden gets to appoint two judges. I mean honestly it wouldn't be smart for them to do from their POV at least until another republican is in office.
But defeatism tho!
It’s not entirely meaningless. Her aim is to keep the justices recent rulings in the media so that voters are aware of them come Nov.
AOC isn’t a dummy, and she’s knows that Johnson will immediately throw this in the trash.
I’d like to see someone else do this next week, and then another person the week after, etc etc. keep doing it until Nov. Keep reminding voters about the corruption.
Yep this is as performative as the GOP threatening impeachment of Mayorkas. I get why she's doing it but it's going to be dead by Friday.
She has no leg to stand on... Corruption is legal in the US for high ranking officials.
This lady will do anything to keep her name in the news.
This has as much chance of going somewhere and she does it being president which is to say zero.
This is political theatre to distract from the party's current issues.
You’re correct in that the press coverage is the point, and it’s impossible to get past Johnson.
I disagree that this is about getting her name in the press. She’s trying to keep the supreme court’s last session in the press. The media will focus on the court for a week, then move onto the new shiny thing.
The only way to keep the SCOTUS in the news right now is to do stuff like this. The big broadcasters flock to the drama.
Like her or not, that lady got some hard as steel balls. AOC for president woooo!
Hey, DNC, aren't you desperate to put a woman up for election? You've got a fiery, quick-witted, awesome, young one here that is full of ideas and not afraid to try stuff. The conservatives haven't had time to run decades of smear tactics against her and she hasn't been threatening her husband's SA victims. I bet she already has a plan to deal with someone accusing her of being born in Mexico (I understand she's Puerto Rican, but that's not the bogeyman) and shut it down before years of idiocy bring it up again.
She's standing behind Biden this time around. I'm hoping for a run in 2028. It would be the first presidential candidate in a while that I didn't hold my nose to vote for.
She’s a firebrand—that’s not an insult. But it is a fact that if the DNC puts her to run, she will mobilize a lot of voters who may otherwise sit this one out. Hard to say definitively how many on either side; but I think she’s likely more hated by the rightwing base than she is loved by the left wing/centrist base.
I don’t think it would be a good strategic move in this cycle. Although I’d love to see her in the Oval Office and would vote that way should the chance arise.
Uh, late 40s here. I didn’t want to vote for Clinton (I did), but I’ll be first in line for AOC. She’s the right kind of direction to inspire us Genx who vote liberal. Time for Joe to step down.
Any good leftist candidate would mobilize opposition voters, that is unavoidable. It's no reason to not run a good candidate.
Agreed on this cycle. Agree or not we've got Biden. That's not changing and that's who I'll be behind. But damn, next cycle if she's in the primary I'm going to get even more involved than I already am.
All evidence suggests that's the opposite of what the DNC wants
A moderate Crusty old white guy or bust! And then when he's too old say he shouldn't be running....
AOC suffers the same problem as Nancy Peloci: she's too demonized by the GOP. It's an odd problem to have but she would need to retire from the House for a few years and run later.
If you want AOC-like, Kathy Porter is actually a very viable candidate. The question is whether the DNC is willing to let her actually run or if they'll pull a "It's Hillary's turn" like they did to Bernie.
Who gives a shit what the GOP wants.
The GOP demonizing her is a good thing. It means they are scared of her.
Right? We get it, the GOP wants to watch the world burn.
Voters do after decades of shit tactics, but she hasn't been embroiled in anything and they haven't had time to really put it into people's subconscious.
Also, I agree with your sentiment. I can't give the slightest shit what a bunch of homophobic, regressive, hateful, Nazi cuntbags and their enablers think. If we work hard and get lucky we may be able to live in a world where what they think never matters again.
Democrats always want to please the GOP. Anytime they appoint someone (for example a special counsel) it always has to be a Republican to avoid the bad optics. Fuck that noise.
Meanwhile the GOP takes its gifted position and furthers it's goals.
This will be true of any candidate another party runs. It is their primary MO, so ultimately, it needs to be factored out of discussions like these. If Joe Voter believes that shit anyway, it doesn't actually matter what candidate you run.
I think AOC has a lot of the same features that made Bernie so popular on 2016 with the added benefit of youth.
The GOP will try to demonize, but she will rise above the noise the same way Bernie did. Given that she is so young, she can stay relevant and pick and choose the exact moment she wants to run for president. Or even VEEP as the gateway to presidency.
Katie Porter
I was pretty bummed when she lost the Senate race
I would gladly vote for her. Hell I’d even volunteer for her campaign.
I'd vote for her, but I don't think she's ready. Better than Biden though.
Personally, I want Jon Stewart. He's not perfect, but there's not a single person on the planet better equipped to take down Trump.
I don't know if Jon or AOC would make a better president, but Jon would be better at campaigning against Trump.
But really just give us someone under 65. (Note: I'll still vote for the good person who's too old for the job if the alternative isn't better.)
I definitely get the love for Stewart. However, he holds no elected position and has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in running for president. So I'm not going to be the one to hold a gun to his head and force him to run.
AOC has the proper ambitions. If she's not ready then let her decide that because the only reason she wouldn't be is because a bunch of out of touch old dudes refuse to mentor her and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.
pls no more reality tv presidents.
There's a bit of a difference. Jon Stewart has made his reputation and career in political commentary. That's not exactly The Apprentice.
Yeah Jon is very intelligent, very quick witted, and a deep thinker. He reads a lot, listens, and learns from his mistakes. He knows to admit he doesn’t know something and listen to advice. And most importantly, he actually wants to do what’s right. I’m pretty sure he’d be a top 10 president.
To compare him to a reality tv personality like Trump is a little disingenuous.
ps no more actors or presidents that want to get into acting
That's not fair, you don't always get to choose what you'll be successful at. But we could use a doctor president...
I would literally pay hundreds of dollars to see Jon Stewart debate Trump, like pay per view. Jon would eviscerate Trump. He might frustrate him so much he’d have a heart attack right there on stage …. or better yet cause Trump to shit and completely overflow his diaper. Trump should probably wear his brown pants just in case.
Stewart would never run.
Bet you if AOC said to Jon stewart ill run for president if you are my running mate he would do it.
That would be the best campaign in history
I would love AOC and bernie sanders to be on the supreme court, however impossible that is
He might just jump on that grenade because the US would need it and I'd give him better than even odds he would self-sacrifice to counter evil winning.
I also think he would do an actual good job as vice president. Like break the mould type good
We could draft him
Stewart would be terrible for it.
Smart guy, great at calling BS, but he's continued to preach understanding and cooperation in the post Trump world in a way that, plainly, isn't possible when the American right operates in pure bad faith at basically every turn.
Take all the issues Obama had getting walked all over because he tried to work with the GOP and amplify it.
What's an SA victim ?
SA is sexual assault
Thanks.
Sexual assault victim. Bill Clinton is a rapist and general sex pest.
Thanks. I was seeing 'South American' and it just didn't work.
She would have a real chance at winning this cycle...thus there's no way they'd run her.
This will be the last cycle we have Democrats...a LOT of people are about to fall out of windows Russia style after Trump takes office.
The Supreme Court made him a king and people like AoC will be first on his hit list.
Problem: The Democratic Party would rather loose than get a left-winger elected.
First and foremost, she isnt eligible to be president until next year. She's only 34, and won't be 35 until after the inauguration.Whoops, looks like I misread and was off by a year. I don't think it's going to matter this time around, but hopefully they keep her in mind for the future.
Per US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:
AOC was born in New York City, NY, USA on 10/13/1989. On 10/13/2024, as in this October 13th, AOC will turn 35 years old. At that point she will be eligible to take the office of the presidency.
35 would be the youngest age of any president, though. The most recent younger presidents were Barack Obama and Bill Clinton at 47 and 46, respectively. The youngest ever president was Theodore Roosevelt at 42.
It would be a hard line to cross given that the majority of voters seem to be older, but it would be monumental in my nation's history.
If you read the second paragraph they are talking about 2028
And adding to that, she is eligible to be president this year, or rather 20th January 2025, because she's turning 35 in october...
she only turns 35 in october so she's got a long future ahead of her but she wouldn't be eligible until 2028.
She only needs to be 35 when taking office, from what I understand. So would be eligible now.
She's eligible right now because she'll be 35 by inauguration day.
OMFG Her vs trump debate. PLEASE!!
I don't want Trump to be around when she's running. 😇
I fully agree with this innocent nonthreatening comment.
Also agree.
I don't want Trump
runningaround.AOC can run any time.
On one hand, she has more efficacy in congress, on the other hand: fuck those fucking fucks AOC 24 let's fucking go!
Not really, the damage has been done.
She's the best, incredibly inspiring.
Pretty open and shut for the both of them, presiding over cases they have material interest in.
Kick their ass.
Which is why I'm honestly surprised reich-wingers haven't tried to murder her
Knocking on wood.
There was that creepy anime assassination video by fellow congressman gosar, AOC has mentioned receiving multiple death threats and one of the capital rioters said he'd bring guns next time to "assassinate AOC", so awful threats are happening.
Same guy that tweeted a selfie from inside the capital "just want to incriminate myself a little lol.”
AOC is very clear that she believes had they not escaped during the riot, assassinations would have occurred.
I'm happy that she is safe.
Knock on wood.
I have no doubt they'd have killed more then have people there if given the chance.
I just want you to know, I read this comment after a single toke and got concerned someone laced my weed with something.
Are you trying to say that you walked to school, or brought your lunch?
She hasn't done anything to directly go after Fuckface 45. Once she does that...
The rapist with 34 felonies. I won't give the honor of calling him 45.
I've been calling him that since he was in office and Colbert called him "Putin's cock holster".
They did, though, on January 6th! They were looking for her and others.
I’m sure they have tried, I’m also sure she’s probably pretty careful about her day to day life knowing the amount of potential enemies she has
Well.... they did just legalize gratuities for political favors.
Not quite as open and shut anymore.
Open and shut case… if the Dems controlled the house. But not enough democrats were voted into office, so these articles go to MAGA Mike Johnson, and unfortunately, his trash can.
But AOC knows this. Her goal is to keep this in the press so voters remember it in Nov. That’s the real play. No one is actually getting impeached this term. Mike Johnson is a Christian nationalist who loves what those activist judges are doing. No way he’s brining this to the floor. And if he did, AOC doesn’t have a simple majority.
Yea, open and shut objectively, not practically.
She'd get further just paying them enough to quit.
Don't down-talk John Oliver.
I thought his offer to pay the RV judge to quit was admirable. Was it a joke?
I laughed.
Just gotta add a few zeros to the offers. And likely have decent blackmail
Good on her for keeping this in the news for another cycle. This doesn’t go anywhere after she hands them the speaker of the republican controlled House. Johnson is basically going to throw them right in the bin.
But I imagine her goal is to get the media to cover the drama, and therefore keep this corruption story in the news.
She and others should just keep filing articles of impeachment every week until Nov. Keep this shit in the news.
Forcing them to put it in the trash is good though... Another thing to report on so perhaps it shifts house seats a bit.
It also tries to help Democratic congressional candidates in close races. Once these get thrown in the bin, they can remind voters that if they flip enough seats, they can have meaningful impeachment hearings in the next Congress.
Doesn't matter, the attempt had to be made for a firm historical objection.
People have no attention span these days. Our media has trained us to move on quickly to the next thing. They will probably only cover it if someone makes a spectacle of it like Trump does.
Godspeed.
I mean, it would literally only pass if the nominees for their replacements were some of Trump's spawn, but I guess it needs to be done anyways to establish just how corrupt Republicans are. You know.
Again.
Thank you AOC for standing up for the American people! Her speech introducing the articles of impeachment is well worth watching: https://youtu.be/1H1R_qtPiVY
Thanks for posting this. I wouldn't have gone looking for it and it was definitely worth watching.
Time to write my representative in support, and have him laugh at me via bulk form letter!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, saying that their refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases "constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law."
In a statement, the New York congresswoman said that justices' refusal to step aside from cases "in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements" has created an "unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court."
The resolutions were co-sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rashida Talib, D-Mich., Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.
Both flags have each been carried in recent years by members of the "Stop the Steal" movement, whose supporters claim that President Joe Biden did not lawfully win the 2020 presidential election.
Extensive reporting last year by ProPublica showed that Thomas has accepted lavish gifts like vacations and flights without disclosing them in official ethics forms.
In the aftermath of the election, Ginni Thomas also sent messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand with Trump.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Can't they just make it a law they can't be impeached? Can't they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?
No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.
"We think the intent of this 'Impeach These Clowns Act' was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority."
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army
One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.
The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they're supposed to represent.
While technically accurate, you're making the mootest of points.
If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I'm replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.
I agree that Republicans likely wouldn't go along with this today in real life. One can dream
Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them
..for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don't see the flaw in that plan?
Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch. Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc. One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted. But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn't assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.
They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can't be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.
So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can't they just dismiss the case with prejudice?
Impeachment isn't a criminal process, it's a political one, the same rules don't apply.
That's not necessary, as far as I understand there's a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That's not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can't succeed, but it's their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.
And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing
That's not how the three branches work, no.
The three branches are working?
The country's "check engine" light is on, and she's trying to fix it.
Country needs to get its front end/ alignment checked. Seems to only make right turns.
sounds like the steering linkage is disconnected
slaps hood of country this baby can fit so much corruption in it
Gawddayamn, can it ever.
Half the country is about to flood the engine bay with spray foam and put oil in the coolant reservoir.
Not to mention the blinker fluid refills.
Headlight fluids too
Meaningless since the Republicans run the House.
Action denied is just more evidence of their complicitness rather than supposed. Also makes it very clear who does operate for their constitutes and only for their self interest.
Correct. This isn't an open debate anymore - the bribes were accepted. Every no vote is a vote saying it's ok to bribe the court.
The people who need to be convinced to care already don't care. The GOP isn't going to help remove their staunchest pawns on the court.
Especially not if in doing so Biden gets to appoint two judges. I mean honestly it wouldn't be smart for them to do from their POV at least until another republican is in office.
But defeatism tho!
It’s not entirely meaningless. Her aim is to keep the justices recent rulings in the media so that voters are aware of them come Nov.
AOC isn’t a dummy, and she’s knows that Johnson will immediately throw this in the trash.
I’d like to see someone else do this next week, and then another person the week after, etc etc. keep doing it until Nov. Keep reminding voters about the corruption.
Yep this is as performative as the GOP threatening impeachment of Mayorkas. I get why she's doing it but it's going to be dead by Friday.
She has no leg to stand on... Corruption is legal in the US for high ranking officials.
Congress and Mullahs are on the side here lol
lol.
🙄
This lady will do anything to keep her name in the news.
This has as much chance of going somewhere and she does it being president which is to say zero.
This is political theatre to distract from the party's current issues.
You’re correct in that the press coverage is the point, and it’s impossible to get past Johnson.
I disagree that this is about getting her name in the press. She’s trying to keep the supreme court’s last session in the press. The media will focus on the court for a week, then move onto the new shiny thing.
The only way to keep the SCOTUS in the news right now is to do stuff like this. The big broadcasters flock to the drama.
"You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus."